The layout discussed in this thread Possible New Layout - TrainBoard.com is being scrapped due to financial reasons and the current state of the economy. Also it is important to note that the Director of the BLM has made some demands: 1. Size has to be cut down. 2. Both windows cannot be blocked. 3. Room has to be left for a bed, even if it's a roll-away, for overnight guests (I don't know why as we very seldom have any overnight guests). Some Givens: 1. Keep it simple 2. Use existing Unitrack 3. Only 2 main industries will be served 4. Some light switching 5. Continuous running 6. Scenery will play a big role 7. A.M. train drops off loads to industries and proceeds to BNSF interchange and picks up any cars there and returns in the p.m. to pick up any empties at the industries it serves. I started with the Atlas N-505 track plan and converted it to Kato Unitrack and then started making some changes. Here's the plan: Of course, this is N-Scale. Comments/Suggestions?
That's unfortunate news about the other plan. It was really coming along nicely. Nonetheless, making the plan is 1/3 of the fun right? Have you played around with a pit design any? If you could extend the benchwork out to 5 feet, right up next to the window, then add a foot wide section across the front you could have a 2.5x6' operators nest and give the perception that the trains are going somewhere more than just back and fourth. Of course that depends if your comfortable moving around in 2.5 foot wide isle, or 3 foot if you really like the idea and you reduced the back to 1 foot as well.
I haven't actually put that idea to paper yet but have considered it while doing some research on other plans. It's a concept I might be able to sell to the BLM. I usually will mark the outline of benchwork with tape on the floor to get a sense of how it might fit. This may be something I'll do this weekend and then proceed.
Okay I did a quick mockup for a pit style benchwork and am not comfortable with it. Further discussions were held with the Director of the BLM and things have swung back to my way, so this is the plan so far with some minor adjustments. The overall size is going to remain the same as the original and blocking the windows will not be an issue.
Director of the BLM......SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed)....Ah, formidable foe to all track plans!!!:tb-biggrin::tb-biggrin::tb-tongue: Best to curry favor in order to keep any track plan alive!!!:tb-ooh: New plan looks pretty good.
The more I look at Revision 7 the more I like it. You may have to do something to pacify the BLM director later on, but well, that's how it goes..........I have my own district director to deal with
I concur...I like the look and obviously the hard work that went into Version 7. The new one is toy-like in comparison and you wouldn't be satisfied with operations. Stick with the plan you worked on with Mystere...it's a winner.
Still working on this. I have made some subtle changes and some may not even be noticeable. One thing about the program I use (AnyRail) is that you can set a warning level for flex track if the curves are too sharp or length of the flex is longer than the manufacturer's stated size. I kept looking at the plan and something just didn't sit right with me. I enlarged the plan to a scale of 1:1 and sure enough the program indicated that some of the curves were too sharp so I made some adjustments. I also made sure the stated length of the flex track was not exceeded. Like I said, these are subtle changes but I want to make sure everything will be okay. I'm still pondering any more changes in the trackage. I don't want to go overboard as I want a train to pass through scenery and also room to simulate a town. I know I am going to have to do some selective compression in this area. I did shorten and change the course of the river. My thoughts are where it goes off the front edge is to place a farm scene next to it in that area. Also I am trying to make up my mind on any areas of elevation of the track and to what degree. Another change is that I have gone back to the angled yard track design. Too me it just looks better from an aesthetic point of view. So here we are as of today:
I cant take nearly half the credit for helping with the plan. There have been many great contributors to this design. But thanks for the mention I'm glad you went back to the angled yard. Though the concern was possible coupling issues, I think on a radius that wide, you'll have no problems. It does have an aesthetic appeal. You say you're pondering any more elevation changes.. is there current elevation plans? I've always enjoyed raising the back of my layouts at least an inch or two above the front. It just adds one more degree of separation between the tracks to help distinguish them as different locations. And raising only an inch or two keeps the grade to a minimum, especially as there are no minimum height spots, such as tracks going over/under each other. I do like what you've done with the river. I'm debating whether I'd like to see the double track bridge moved to the left so that the river travels between the tracks more. So many possibilities with a river scene, but as is, half of the river would be blocked out of view. I still miss the mill placed between the track and benchwork, but I cant see a way to justify it as the current location is pretty solid itself. I think you're just about done with this one!
It's good to see the larger track plan is still feasible. As shown in this version from the other thread, the arrival-departure track reliability may be improved by moving the turnouts to before the curve and thus removing the S-curve. Shifting the crossover between the yard lead and the classification tracks back before the corner will remove that S-curve too. Avoiding S-curves and adding the caboose track and engine facilities reflect my personal preferences for a layout; but, since this is your layout, the features you elect to include in your plan should match your preferences rather than anyone else's. I like how your most recent plan has the river disappear behind the track. Such an arrangement will let you avoid modeling the abrupt transition from 3-D river to 2-D painted backdrop (which always strikes me as more difficult to model than any river's appearance out of nothing at the front of a layout). I agree with Mark about using a slight increase in elevation on the back tracks to "separate" them a little more from the front tracks. This will improve the composition of any layout pics, too. I don't recall...Have any of your plans mentioned elevations? Do you have any reservations related to construction or operation that discourage you from using slight grades on your layout?
Thanks Dave and Mark. I am still working on some aspects that you guys mention; however, I just realized a problem area. That's the grain elevator and it interferes with making up of trains in the yard. Too much of a reach over it so I think I will move it to the right loop. Then there's the dilemma of where to place Red Wing Milling. More kinks to work out but thankfully this is not ready for production yet.
What if you just rotate the elevators, red wing and feed mill counter-clockwise and add a second spur to where the feed mill previously is.
I think what will work is leave RWM where it is, switch the feed mill and grain elevator. The feed mill has a somewhat low profile and should not interfere with making up trains in the yard. The silos of the grain elevator will help conceal the tracks in the upper left.
I haven't really made any changes to the layout, but I did make a mock up of the room where it will go. I apologize for the crude cut outs but it is pretty close to scale. I wanted to visualize how the benchwork was going to fit in. If I build the benchwork to dimensions, I will have an extra 8-10 inch space on the side by the doorway. I'm not sure if I will just center the benchwork in the room or add extensions off that side and make more room for scenery. I don't think it would be wise to extend the track across the middle section to accomodate this because then I will have some pretty good reaches on that side. The other project I have been working on in the meantime is revamping my web site since a new track plan calls for it. Why not? You can take a look at it here. Some of the pages just have place holders since construction is still a couple of months or so away but there is still some good info about the NFW and some links to other sites and manufacturers, dealers etc. If you visit the site and have any thing you would like to see added I invite you to PM me here at TrainBoard or in the lower right corner of my web site is a Feedback button that you can click on and provide appropriate feedback. As always, stayed tuned for more developments.
That mock up really puts the finished work in perspective. ( i'd go with the extra run length in the centre and snuggle the layout wall to wall -IMO - you may regret not doing it later on.)
That's what I would do too. If you add to the length where the bench work is narrow, you wont create any longer of a reach than what is already there. On the other hand.. You could scooch that section inside the room a tad and create an F shaped benchwork.. that might pose some great solutions to breaking up the scene.
You're both are right. I would probably regret it later. Since my website is up to date at this point I think I'll start working on the plan some more. This should open up some more possibilities with respect to scenery. Thanks guys for your input.
I had not worked on the plan for a while. Been busy with working out details for benchwork etc. but did have some time today. Dave H. (ppuinn) had offered up some advice and a drawing and the more I studied it the more I liked a lot of what it had to offer. So I have made an attempt to recreate what he had proposed and have attached the image here. Suggestions/comments? EDIT: Noticed that the background may hinder the viewing so I uploaded a new image.
First thing I see right off the bat is compared to the size of your main yard, your engine facility is huge! The caboose track is a bit long as well. I'd probably use the top most track in the engine facility as the caboose track, then the next two down as the engine facility, and drop the last track and the current caboose track. Remember, an engine facility is going to need structures to make it work. Right now, I don't see where those structures can fit. Also, the engine escape track has no where to escape to. Instead of looping it around the yard, could you connect it up to the left most yard track? That way the engine can pull into there then back out and around the train and come up on it's rear. Other than that, I think you're getting to the point that further critiques might start degrading the design! Does AnyRail have a "run train" option? It's always a good idea to start running some virtual trains on the layout. You'll find any remaining kinks and problematic areas right off the bat. :thumbs_up: Cant wait to see you get things thing up and running!
Thanks for looking Mark. I'll study those situations. As far as AnyRail having a "run train" option, you can export the file and use with TrainPlayer. The only problem I have with that is that TrainPlayer operates on Vista/XP/2000/NT4/98/ME. I am a pure Linux person; however, I do have to use AnyRail using Wine (the developers do not see any chance of a Linux version) and sometimes there are instances when you go to make changes e.g. changing the angle and length of flex track the program crashes on me. AnyRail does have an automatic backup feature if you haven't saved your work. The only thing about that is the file names are somewhat cryptic and you have to search for them. I have learned that if I am going to make some changes like that, I manually back the file up before I make the change. It can become annoying at times but I have to live with that I guess. So I haven't really considered using TrainPlayer since I would have to run it under Wine. I really would rather be drinking the Wine and not having the same possibilties occur with TrainPlayer.:tb-biggrin: I can't wait to get started either but it is still a couple of months away. The nice thing I found out when I did an inventory of the Atlas Code 55 I had on hand is I won't have to buy much more track and even better I have enough #7's on hand for the plan that my costs are going to be way down.
